babbling blue

Citing the inability of a SCOTUS justice to wear blue to work, Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name from consideration. Who knew she was such a slave to fashion?

So what happens now? Nothing good, surely. It’s nice to see that I wasn’t the only person with the little conspiracy theory I came up with right after the nomination.

A friend of mine said that Rove might have actually been behind this nomination, allowing someone to go forward who would get very little support, so that any opposition to the next nominee could be portrayed as obstructionism. And that next nominee will likely be a very far right ideologue, or as my friend said, Darth Vader.

Restless Mania

At least we know Darth Vader wouldn’t have a problem wearing a black robe every day.

Attorney: And that’s why it’s critical to our society that we protect the civil rights of those held in government custody. Thank you.
Justice Vader: I find your arguments quite disappointing, counselor. [makes squeezing gesture with thumb and index finger]
Attorney: [gasps] [chokes] [falls down dead]

It’s nice to see there is at least one conservative out there that actually thinks rather than regurgitating terms like “strict originalist” or “strict constructionist” that they don’t really understand. Even though our goals and philosophies are definitely not aligned, I have to respect the Conservative Princess for that.

Do you really want an strict Originalist? No. No conservative really wants that. What conservatives do know is that they have no idea what they want. They only believe that they want an Originalist because it means that Roe could get overturned, but newsflash! someone who spells an end for Roe in the Originalist sense, might take a strike or two at Federalism and the Commerce Clause every once in a great while.

While I don’t think Miers was a very qualified candidate, nor that she wasn’t a crony, I am more afraid of who is coming next than I was of her. Anyone who doesn’t fear Darth Vader is probably mentally deficient.

I’m willing to bet we’ve all heard variations of that phrase used many times. And I’m further willing to bet that most people who say it have no idea what torture is really like. I know I don’t. And I hope I never need to find out. But who knows?

With timing that was a result of prescience or coincidence, the episode of “Commander in Chief” last night dealt with torture. Specifically torture of a terror suspect by the U.S. government. This is a warm topic right now. It should really be hot, but people don’t seem to care as much as they should.

In the real world (as opposed to the fictional world on “Commander in Chief”) the Senate recently passed–overwhelmingly, though not unanimously–an amendment to the defense spending bill that outlaws torturing a prisoner in U.S. custody. And now our warm & fuzzy Vice President is coming out against it–the amendment, that is. That’s right, Dick Cheney wants us (via the CIA) to torture people.

So now Mr. Cheney is trying to persuade members of a House-Senate conference committee to adopt language that would not just nullify the McCain amendment but would formally adopt cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as a legal instrument of U.S. policy.

Washington Post Editorial

In the fictional world I mentioned, the Attorney General authorizes torturing a terror suspect to prevent an impending attack. She did this after the President said “I don’t want to hear that he was tortured” which the AG took to mean it was ok to torture the guy, but the Prez didn’t want to be told. This didn’t go well.

The AG’s position was that these terrorist scum (and I do believe terrorists are scum, don’t get me wrong) don’t deserve our protection.

I think President Mackenzie Allen’s response to this was spot on:

The rules are not there to protect them. They are to protect us. Other nations follow us. If we torture there is nothing to prevent other countries from doing the same, to our citizens.

The arguments against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (torture) are:

1. It is wrong/immoral. This is a nebulous, subjective argument. I’m not saying I don’t believe it, but it’s not the strongest point.
2. It is unreliable. This is a stronger argument as it can be supported with fact, not just feeling.
3. It sets a bad example. The point the fictional President made is a strong one as well. If we can torture, so can everyone else.

Just say no to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the government. That’s what bad guys do.

JUDGE MICHAEL MCCONNELL
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, appointed by G.W. Bush, 50 years old
Has criticized Bush v. Gore and the Clinton impeachment, but also Roe v. Wade (he signed a statement in 1996 supporting a constitutional amendment banning abortion). Has plenty of things to make Democrats happy; you hope they can overcome that one big one!

New World Man presents: My favorite candidate for the Supreme Court
brought to you by Quizilla

Very interesting. W has chosen his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on SCOTUS. He chose Harriet Miers. This process is going to be fun to watch. The headline on my homepage wasn’t something like “Bush taps woman for O’Connor replacement” or “Harriet Miers chosen as Supreme Court nominee”. Rather, it was “High Court Nominee Has Never Been a Judge”

The thing that excites me about Harriet is that this choice doesn’t seem to be popular among conservatives. That’s a good sign. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Most conservatives seemed to be hoping (and expecting) someone more like Scalia or Thomas (in other words, stalwart extreme right-wing nutjobs).

What they got is someone who isn’t a known quantity, but may be somewhat moderate. We don’t know because, as the headline above helpfully points out, she’s never been a judge. She hasn’t argued before the Supreme Court either. She has, however, contributed to the campaigns of both Republicans and Democrats (Al Gore, 1988). Right now, we have little to use to gauge her political philosophy on any major issues. That includes abortion.

I predict we’ll be seeing some characteristic right-wing hypocrisy during the confirmation. Conservatives that applauded John G. Roberts for not answering questions will insist that Miers respond to the same. And attack her if she doesn’t.

But what if she’s being set up to fail? Miers is seen as a strong Bush loyalist (one thing that worries me if she does get confirmed). It’s conceivable that she would agree to take one for the team. If she isn’t confirmed, the argument will be that she isn’t experienced enough; she may even draw comparisons to Michael Brown. Republicans will use the term “experienced” but they’ll mean “conservative”, of course. So let’s say she’s turned away, with the primary reason being lack of experience. That opens the door wide for Bush’s so-called second choice to be someone with a lot of experience and a rock-solid conservative history. Someone more like Scalia or Thomas. W could then simply say “You asked for experience, and that’s what I gave you.” It would be difficult for Democrats to fight off such a nominee in that situation.

At this point, that’s nothing more than a conspiracy theory in my head. But it’s something to think about. And it’s completely within the abilities of Karl “Lucifer” Rove to conceive and orchestrate.

In my humble opinion, unless we learn something more drastically wrong with her, we should grudgingly confirm Harriet Miers to the court. Because we really could do much worse.

Of course anyone vaguely interested in politics seems to be blogging about W’s Supreme Court (SCOTUS) nominee, so I guess I should do the same.

After a very convincing fake-out, giving no one but those secretly clued-in adequate time to prepare, George W Bush appointed another straight, white, conservative, Christian male. There is nothing particularly wrong with that combination, it’s just that they already make up a good portion of SCOTUS. Why another one? Well. . . we knew it would be someone conservative and straight, and Christian was a fair bet too. But the white and male parts were certainly not guaranteed. In fact, up until a few hours before the televised announcement, everyone seemed to think it would be a woman. A moderate conservative woman, at that.

But no, it’s a white guy. And he’s only 50, which means he could realistically be on the Court for 3 decades or more. Rehnquist is 87, and he’s still going . . . sort of.

Everyone seems to think this guy, John Roberts, Jr., is going to be confirmed. And I’m inclined to agree. I don’t know yet if that’s good or bad. He has minimal experience as a judge on which to base an opinion of him. Most of his career was as an attorney. And an attorney argues the beliefs of his clients, not necessarily his own.

One of the few things we do know is that he is against abortion. When he was being confirmed for his seat on the Court of Appeals he was asked about his position. He stated that it was the established law of the land and that he would uphold it. But that was for a job in which he had to defer to the Supreme Court. In his new job, he’ll be on the Supreme Court and he can help to change the law of the land. The talking heads on CNN last night seem to think that a wholesale overturning of Roe v. Wade is unlikely, but that with Roberts on the Court abortion rights will probably be slowly eroded.

This is of course all just guessing at this point; no one really knows what will happen. But some people are definitely freaking out. There are a number of special interest groups opposed to Roberts as well. This guy gives a nice roundup of the arguments against him thus far.

Since confirmation at this point seems inevitable, before we liberals begin to panic, we should remember the history of Sandra Day O’Connor. When she was appointed she was also a staunch conservative. Some of her earlier opinions reflect that. In 1983 she sided with the conservatives (the minority) in favor of local abortion restrictions. In 1986 she voted to uphold a Georgia anti-sodomy law. In 1989 she sided with the right against minority set-asides. But then Sandra began to drift more towards the middle. In 1992 and 2000 she sided with the left in two abortion cases. In 2003 she voted in favor of U. of Mich’s affirmative action policy. Finally in 2003 she helped strike down Texas’ law banning homosexual sodomy (thanks Sandra D!).

Conservatives felt betrayed by her, but many people think she turned out to be a pretty damn good justice in the end. She considered each case on its own merits, and didn’t bow to political pressure or personal prejudices. We can only hope that something similar happens with the future Justice Roberts, who will be taking her place.

W’s choice (or rather his handlers’ choice. . . he’s not smart enough to have done this himself) was politically brilliant. There is almost nothing in Robert’s history that can be used against him in the confirmation process. He’s practically a blank slate. Yet he’s a stalwart conservative, so it seems to be a safe choice for the right.

All we can do at this point is wait and watch and hope for the best.

MoveOn.org: Save NPR and PBS

If you haven’t already done so, go sign the petition to tell Congress not to cut funding for PBS and NPR. I grew up on “Sesame Street” but the children of tomorrow may not have the chance to.

Well it’s been awhile since the last ill-fated presidential election took place. Just over a month now. But it hasn’t been forgotten. Last night I went to the holiday party in my apartment building, and people were still talking about it. This could be because of all the cabinet changes announced in the last couple weeks.

In my last entry in I said “The worst thing that can happen is 4 more years of the Bush presidency.” As much as I hate being wrong normally, I really hope I am in this case. While it might feel good in a few years to rub some noses in Bush’s fuck ups and say “I told you so” I’d rather have to admit Bush isn’t so terrible than have the country (education, civil rights, economy, jobs, etc) in the toilet.

So now we wait and see. And try to fight the things that need to be fought. One idea seems to be that those of in cities, for the most part “blue” strongholds, tell the rest of the country to go fuck themselves. Here is one take on this idea:

The Urban Archipelago

The article is interesting, if a bit overly bitter. But they forgot to mention something that I believe is of the utmost importance; the degradation of freedom in America. The Republicans are actively trying to expand the scope of the USA PATRIOT Act (passed overwhelmingly by both parties in a blind Post-9/11 patriotic fervor) further eroding the premise of due process and making the country even less hospitable for non-citizens; Democrats, on the other hand are trying to rollback some of the heavy-handedness in PATRIOT. Legislation is in the works to add 23 new federal death penalties for terrorism crimes, make it easier for the Justice Department to get information about people without showing just cause or going through the courts (and sealing their request with a gag order), allow the government to detain a person without having to show they are dangerous or likely to flee–the burden would be placed on the suspect to prove they are NOT dangerous, permit removal of non-citizens who at the determination of the government) have ever belonged to a political group that has ever used violence to a country where their “life or freedom would be threatened”, etc. The list goes on, and it’s scary.

And why is all this happening? In the name of security. It’s happening because people are afraid of terrorists. But who is it that wants to give Big Brother all of this power to “protect” us? That’s right. . . the “Red’s”. The people who, for the most part, live in areas highly unlikely ever to be struck by a terrorist attack. Those of us who live in the cities (I’m in Chicago) and are therefore at a higher risk would rather we keep the freedoms that make us Americans than go overboard in order to be “safer”.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60129,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0928-07.htm

http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=17185

Don’t give up your freedom for the false promise of security.

But only for Kerry.

Especially if you’re in a swing state, do NOT vote for Nader or any other third-party candidate. Sure, you may believe in what they have to say. Great, fine, splendid. But in an election this close we can’t afford not to vote for Kerry.

The American political system forces us to, in many cases, choose the guy or gal who sucks less than his or her opponent. Does that stink? Yes it does! Should we try to change that? Sure! Should we try to change that by voting for a third-party candidate this year? Probably not! If you live in Ohio or Florida or Wisconsin or other highly contested state, don’t even think about NOT voting for Kerry. It’s not an option.

The worst thing that can happen is 4 more years of the Bush presidency. He dragged us into a war under false pretenses with inadequate support and no plan for winning the peace. Now it’s turned into a quagmire which has proven fatal for thousands of Americans, Iraqis and others. The economy is not doing well, the job market sucks. The environment has suffered (the Bush administration has rolled back many protections that existed when he took office). Our civil rights are being gutted by the Patriot Act. He wants to amend the constituon to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, putting discrimination into what is the closest thing to a sacred document we Americans have.

Education? No Child Left Behind has left children behind. When a national teachers union had the nerve to (gasp) speak out about how it wasn’t working, Bush’s Secretary of Education called them a terrorist organization! (See the story) Can you imagine? Bush didn’t have anything to say about this. Typical of this administration is attack the messenger rather than the message when someone doesn’t agree with them. Health care costs are continuing to increase with no end in sight. Bush opposes importing prescription medications to help bring down drug costs. Millions of Americans lost their health insurance coverage during the Bush presidency.

So, go vote. Tell your family and friends. In a free country as ours (supposedly) is, we can vote for whomever we want. So vote for the candidate that has a chance to do the most good. In my opinion, that is John Kerry.